GSAP SplitText

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only mentions splitting and animating with stagger. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as DOM modification, revert behavior (though revert parameter exists), class additions, or whether the split is temporary. No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by briefly noting revert or class parameters, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 9 parameters, including nested objects, and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain important parameters like animation object structure, class options, or revert. It is incomplete for such a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 44%. The description adds no meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., mentioning chars/words/lines matches the type parameter default). It does not explain required parameters target or animation structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool splits text into chars/words/lines and animates with stagger. It differentiates from gsap_textplugin for plain text replacement, but does not differentiate from other text-related siblings like gsap_morphsvg or gsap_drawsvg.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit instructions: 'Use when animating individual characters or words.' and 'For plain text replacement use gsap_textplugin instead.' Provides clear when-to-use and alternative for a common case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.